Pangandaman vs Casar

1. Petitioner: Hadji Ibrahim Solay Pangandaman, Magambaan Pangandaman, Macarian

Pangandaman, Mamintal Pangandaman, Pacalundo Pangandaman, Mangoramas
Pangandaman, Macadaob P. Pangorangan Kilatun Pangandaman, Mario
Pangandaman, Macabidar Pangandaman, Puyat P. Romampat, Santorani P.
Dimapengen, Nasser P. Dimapengen And Diama Opao
2. Defendants:
a. Dimaporo T. Casar, As Municipal Circuit Trial Judge Of Poonabayabao,
Tamparan And Masiu, Lanao Del Sur
b. People of the Philippines
3. Petitioner asks:
a. to annul the warrant for their arrest issued by respondent Judge Dimaporo T.
Casar of the Municipal Circuit Court of Masiu, Lanao del Sur, in Criminal Case
No. 1748 entitled People vs. Hadji Ibrahim Solay Pangandaman et al.
b. to prohibit the Judge from taking further cognizance of said Criminal Case No.
1748
c. to compel the Judge to forward the entire record of Criminal Case No. 1748 to
the Provincial Fiscal of Lanao del Sur for proper disposition.
4. Their plea is essentially grounded on the claim that the warrant for their arrest was
issued by the respondent Judge without a proper preliminary investigation. The
Solicitor General agrees and recommends that their petition be granted and the
warrant of arrest voided.
5. While they concede the authority of the respondent judge tp conduct a preliminary
investigation, the petitioners and the Solicitor General argue that the Judge in the case
at bar failed to conduct the investigation in accordance with the procedure prescribed in
Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court
a. Also, it was on Saturday that the complaint was filed before the judge. So it
would be impossible for him to determine the existence of probable cause for 64
persons.
6. The petitioners further assert that the respondent Judge conducted the preliminary
investigation of the charges "... in total disregard of the Provincial Fiscal ..." who, as said
respondent well knew, had already taken cognizance of the matter twelve (12) days
earlier and was poised to conduct his own investigation of the same; 17 and that
issuance of a warrant of arrest against fifty (50) "John Does" transgressed the
Constitutional provision requiring that such warrants should particularly describe the
persons or things to be seized.
7. 1985 ROC:
a. The first phase consists of an ex-parte inquiry into the sufficiency of the
complaint and the affidavits and other documents offered in support thereof. And
it ends with the determination by the Judge either: (1) that there is no ground to
continue with the inquiry, in which case he dismisses the complaint and transmits
the order of dismissal, together with the records of the case, to the provincial
fiscal; or (2) that the complaint and the supporting documents show sufficient
cause to continue with the inquiry and this ushers in the second phase.
b. This second phase is designed to give the respondent notice of the complaint,
access to the complainant's evidence and an opportunity to submit counter-
affidavits and supporting documents. At this stage also, the Judge may conduct a
hearing and propound to the parties and their witnesses questions on matters
that, in his view, need to be clarified. The second phase concludes with the
Judge rendering his resolution, either for dismissal of the complaint or holding the
 respondent for trial, which shall be transmitted, together with the record, to the
provincial fiscal for appropriate action.
c. The procedure above described must be followed before the complaint or
information is filed in the Regional Trial Court.
8. Here, no information has as yet been filed with the Regional Trial Court.
9. QUESTION: WON the respondent Judge had the power to issue the warrant of arrest
without completing the entire prescribed procedure for preliminary investigation. Stated
otherwise, is completion of the procedure laid down in Section 3 of Rule 112 a condition
sine qua non for the issuance of a warrant of arrest?
a. There is no requirement that the entire procedure for preliminary investigation
must be completed before a warrant of arrest may be issued.
b. What the Rule provides is that no complaint or information for an offense
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court may be filed without completing that
procedure. But nowhere is it provided that the procedure must be completed
before a warrant of arrest may issue.
c. Indeed, it is the contrary that is true. The present Section 6 of the same Rule 112
clearly authorizes the municipal trial court to order the respondent's arrest even
before opening the second phase of the investigation if said court is satisfied that
a probable cause exists and there is a necessity to place the respondent under
immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
10. this Court is not prepared to question the propriety of the respondent Judge's finding of
probable cause or substitute its judgment for his in the matter of what questions to put to
the witnesses during the preliminary examination.
11. The fact that the Provincial Fiscal may have announced his intention of investigating the
incident himself did not, in the view of the Court, legally inhibit the respondent Judge
from conducting his own inquiry into the matter if, as is made to appear here, it was
regularly brought before him and no formal complaint was filed before the Fiscal.
Courtesy may have dictated that in those circumstances he leave the investigation to the
Fiscal and simply endorse to the latter the complaint filed with him; duty did not, and if he
nonetheless chose to conduct his own investigation, nothing in the rules states or implies
that he could not do so.
12. Be that as it may, since the action and final resolution of the respondent Judge after
completing the second stage of the preliminary investigation are subject to review by the
Provincial Fiscal, practical considerations of expediency and the avoidance of
duplication of work dictate that the latter official be permitted to take over the
investigation even in its present stage.
13. WHEREFORE, the warrant complained of is upheld and declared valid insofar as it
orders the arrest of the petitioners. Said warrant is voided to the extent that it is issued
against fifty (50) "John Does." The respondent Judge is directed to forward to the
Provincial Fiscal of Lanao del Sur the record of the preliminary investigation of the
complaint in Criminal Case No. 1728 of his court for further appropriate action. Without
pronouncement as to costs.